Supreme Court Denies OBC Reservation in All India Quota for 2020-21 Medical Admissions: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India (26 October 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 October 2020

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3518 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9286 of 2020)

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao J., Hemant Gupta J., Ajay Rastogi J.

Can the State of Tamil Nadu enforce its reservation policy for Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates in the medical seats surrendered to the All India Quota? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, which has significant implications for medical admissions across the country. This case revolves around the State of Tamil Nadu’s plea to implement OBC reservations in the All India Quota seats for the academic year 2020-2021.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi, delivered the judgment. The court’s decision focused on whether to grant interim relief for the implementation of OBC reservations for the academic year 2020-2021, considering the advanced stage of the admission process.

Case Background

The State of Tamil Nadu sought to implement its reservation policy for OBC candidates in the 15% of medical seats that the state contributes to the All India Quota. The state argued that its 1993 Act, which governs reservation in educational institutions, should apply to these seats. The state government made a representation to the Union of India to permit implementation of reservation for OBC candidates in the 15% seats which have been surrendered by the State to the All India Quota. As there was no response from the Union of India, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction for implementation of the 1993 Act to ensure reservation for OBC candidates in the All India Quota seats in medical courses. The High Court accepted the contention of the petitioner and held that reservation for OBC’s has to be implemented in the All India Quota from the next year. However, the Union of India did not agree to the same for the current academic year 2020-2021.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras acknowledged that there was no legal or constitutional impediment to extending the benefit of reservation to OBC candidates in the All India Quota seats. However, it directed that the implementation of such reservations should occur after a joint deliberation between the Central Government, the Medical Council of India (now National Medical Commission), and the State Government. The High Court also stated that the implementation of reservation as prayed by the writ petitioners cannot be done for the present academic year as that would disturb the selection process that has been set into motion.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision to delay the implementation of OBC reservations until the next academic year, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, seeking immediate implementation for the 2020-2021 academic year.

Timeline

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Tamil Nadu:

• The State of Tamil Nadu argued that the 1993 Act, which provides for reservation of seats in educational institutions, should be applicable to the All India Quota seats surrendered by the State.
• The State contended that 85% of the undergraduate medical seats in Tamil Nadu are filled according to the 1993 Act and that the remaining 15% surrendered to the All India Quota should also follow this reservation policy.
• The State asserted that OBC candidates should not be deprived of the benefit of reservation for admissions to government-run medical institutions in Tamil Nadu, especially since admissions to undergraduate courses were still in the early stages.
• The State relied on the Union of India’s previous stand before the High Court, arguing that the respondents should not resort to technical pleas to avoid implementing OBC reservation for the 2020-2021 academic year.

Arguments by the Union of India:

• The Union of India stated that undergraduate seats in MBBS and BDS courses are allotted based on online counseling conducted by the Medical Counseling Committee of the Director General of Health Services (DGHS).
• The Union of India submitted that the allotment is based on the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and that a roster is prepared which includes Unreserved, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Physically Disabled candidates. The roster also includes OBC category, but only with regards to the Central Educational Institutions.
• The Union of India argued that the admission process for postgraduate courses was already completed and the counseling for undergraduate admissions was scheduled to commence on 26.10.2020.
• The Union of India contended that any direction to implement OBC reservation at this stage would lead to complications as the seat contribution and matrix preparation cannot be changed.
• The Union of India clarified that the domicile clause is not applicable to All India Quota seats.

Arguments by the National Medical Commission (formerly Medical Council of India):

• The National Medical Commission stated that 15% of undergraduate and 50% of postgraduate seats in government medical colleges are earmarked as All India Quota seats.
• The Commission submitted that these seats are filled based on the All India NEET merit list without any domicile or residence reservation.
• The Commission clarified that while reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Physically Disabled candidates is implemented, there is no reservation for OBC candidates in the All India Quota seats, except in Central Educational Institutions.
• The Commission argued that implementing OBC reservation for the 2020-2021 academic year was not possible because the admission process had already started, and students were aware that there was no OBC reservation in the All India Quota.

Arguments by the Intervenor:

• The Intervenor supported the State of Tamil Nadu and brought to the court’s notice the stand taken by the Union of India that the State specific reservation for OBCs has to be implemented in the All India Quota seats.
• The Intervenor requested that a direction be issued to the Respondents to implement the OBC reservation for admission to the All India Quota seats in undergraduate medical courses for the current academic year.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether a direction can be issued for implementation of the reservation to OBC candidates for admissions to undergraduate medical courses for this year.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court did not cite any cases or books in this order.

The Court considered the following legal provision:

• The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State) Act, 1993: This Act governs the policy of reservation of seats in educational institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court did not cite any authorities in this order.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the advanced stage of the admission process for the 2020-2021 academic year. The Court emphasized that the admission process had already commenced in December 2019, and the NEET examination results were declared on 16.10.2020, with counseling scheduled to begin on 26.10.2020. The Court noted that implementing OBC reservation at this stage would require redoing the entire process, which would cause further delays and disrupt the admissions.

The Court also considered the fact that candidates who had taken the NEET examination were aware that there was no reservation for OBC candidates in the All India Quota. The Court was of the view that any sudden change in the rules at this advanced stage would be unfair to the candidates who had already applied for the examination.

Additionally, the Court acknowledged the public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which had already delayed the admission process. The Court was reluctant to further delay the admissions by implementing OBC reservation at this stage.

The Court also noted that a committee had been constituted by the Union of India to examine the modalities for implementing OBC reservation in the All India Quota and that a final decision would be taken by the committee which can be implemented from the next academic year.

The Court did not want to disturb the selection process which had already commenced for the current academic year.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court denied the State of Tamil Nadu’s request for interim relief to implement OBC reservation in the All India Quota seats for the 2020-2021 academic year.
• The Court emphasized that the admission process had already commenced, and it would be difficult to implement OBC reservation at this stage without disrupting the process.
• The Court acknowledged that the High Court had correctly observed that the selection process already started for the current academic year could not be disturbed.
• The Court noted that a committee had been constituted by the Union of India to examine the modalities for implementing OBC reservation in the All India Quota, and a final decision will be taken for the next academic year.
• The decision implies that for the 2020-2021 academic year, admissions to the All India Quota seats in medical colleges will not include OBC reservations, except in Central Educational Institutions.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment sets a precedent for the implementation of reservation policies in the All India Quota seats, emphasizing that changes to reservation policies cannot be made mid-process.
• The decision highlights the need for clear communication and planning by the authorities to avoid disruption in the admission process.
• The committee constituted by the Union of India will have to finalize the modalities for implementing OBC reservation in the All India Quota for the next academic year.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this order, except to reject the request for interim relief for the implementation of OBC reservation for the academic year 2020-2021.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio of this case is that once the admission process has commenced, it is difficult to implement changes to the reservation policy mid-process, especially when candidates were aware of the existing policy when applying for the examination.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment does not change any previous positions of law but reinforces the principle that the admission process should not be disrupted mid-way, and that any changes to the reservation policy should be implemented from the next academic year.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied the State of Tamil Nadu’s plea for immediate implementation of OBC reservations in the All India Quota seats for the 2020-2021 academic year. The Court prioritized the smooth continuation of the ongoing admission process, which had already been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures and the challenges in altering reservation policies once an admission process has commenced. The matter of OBC reservation in All India Quota seats will be considered for implementation from the next academic year, after the committee constituted by the Union of India has finalized the modalities.